> > - I assume we will get only one chance to introduce a range of parent > > types. We may want to err on the side of flexibility. > > I see no reason to assume that. We can do whatever we think is > reasonable. > > To point out what I would hope is obvious, adding features that > nobody use is the sort of thing that makes the DNS Camel cry.
>From the perspective of a non-recursive DNSSEC validator, it is very hard to get such a range deployed. The reason is that upstream recursors and forwards have to understand a new range of parent types. We have no (secure) signalling for this so the only option is to wait long enough that this kind of support is widespread. So a future DS2 type will have to use this draft otherwise it will never get deployed. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
